PRECIS: Minority Communities Need More Parks

PRECIS: Minority Communities Need More Parks

(Reading scheduled for Thur. Oct 8)

The article “Minority Communities Need More Parks, Report Says” was written by Angela Rowen and published in The Berkeley Daily Planet. This article addresses a local issue that is particularly relevant to larger discussions of environmental justice and social ecology, as well as the idea of ecoracism. Rowen central focus is Paul Kibel’s report, “Access to Parkland: Environmental Justice at East Bay Parks,” directed at the East Bay Regional Park District. Kibel reviews published and unpublished reports to determine information about usage and access to EBRPD’s holdings and determines that a clear pattern emerges from this data.
According to Kibel, the majority of the district’s 100,000 acres is geographically situated in hillside areas which are next to wealthy, white communities. The low-income flatlands of cities like Oakland, Richmond, Berkeley, Hayward, and Fremont have a much farther proximity to parks than their hillside counterparts. These flatlands are also home to most of the district’s minority neighborhoods. Proximity to parks greatly increases park access; “Kibel argues that because people are more likely to visit parks near their own communities, the district’s historic focus on acquiring large tracts of land in the highlands has created disparities in park usage based on income and, by extension, race.” He hopes “his study will highlight the importance of the availability of open space in the fight for environmental justice, which has largely focused on toxics issues.”
This issue is one of both social justice and ecology, and thus one of environmental justice, because it is believed that parks provide the public with health benefits from recreation, therapeutic benefits from the natural setting, and “consensus for broader environmental policies.” Although I personally agree with the belief that certain park systems provide this final benefit of broadening support of environmentalism, I am skeptical as too the validity and/or directness of this causal claim for all parklands for two reasons. Firstly, there is an immense difference between the “nature” encountered in small urban parks and the “nature” encountered in the expansive, long-standing state and national parks. Secondly, an appreciation for nature’s physical beauty does not necessarily translate to awareness and understanding of global or even local environmental problems. Although I do not contest the value of urban parks, I question his implication that creating new urban parks will directly result in broadened support for environmentalism.
Subsequently, Kibel offers several solutions in his report, although his expressed intention is to “start a conversation about the issue, rather than assess blame or accuse any individuals or groups of environmental racism.” This highlights an important distinction between environmental justice and ecoracism. In addition to outlining the arguments of Kibel and supporters, Rowan provides opposing points from prominent environmentalists, like the chair of the Sierra Club’s East Bay Public Lands Committee, Norman La Force. La Force commends the collaborative efforts of the state and regional park services, adding “that some of the problem of getting more open space in Richmond lies in the political will of African-American city council members, who he says have complained that there are too many parks in their neighborhoods.” Furthermore, he says that “it would have been more useful to examine the California State Parks agency, which wants to create more urban parks but can’t get the funding to do so.”
Additionally, Nancy Skinner, a park district board member who represents Ward 1, which includes Berkeley, San Pablo and Richmond. Skinner, critiques the article, conceding the historical trajectory of existing claims but argues recent aims have been toward acquisition of shoreline. Skinner also praises EBRPD for their instrumental role in passing Measure AA (“which set aside $60 million for city parks to acquire flatland and shoreline parks and develop programs to serve urban communities”). The article closes with Skinner’s reminder that another bond measure, on the November 2008 ballot “would provide for more money to city parks for acquisition of parklands and environmental education and outreach programs that target low-income people.”
Accordingly, I looked up this November 2008 ballot measure to see what it included and whether or not it passed. The measure authorizes East Bay Regional Park District “to issue up to $500 million in general obligation bonds, provided repayment projections, verified by independent auditors, demonstrate that property tax rates will not increase beyond present rates of $10 per year, per $100,000 of assessed valuation.” Measure WW, “Extend Existing East Bay Regional Park District Bond With No Increase In Tax Rate East Bay Regional Park District”, passed 72% yes to 28% no.

by: Whitney Paalborg